Loading...
PC Min 05/20/1976PLANNING C0Ml4ISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA ~' THURSDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 20, 1976 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session, at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Present Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis, Secretary Arthur A. Kee; Senior Planner Bruce Powell; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Acting Public Works Director Bill Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker. Absent Commissioner Stewart MINUTES Commissioner Samuelson moved that the minutes of the r~Iay 6, 1976 meeting be approved as received, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that the communications received relate to specific items on the agenda and would be taken up at the appropriate time. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS Commissioner Pack reported for the Architectural Review Committee. "S" 76-8 Continued application of Elmer Garrison Garrison, Elmer for approval of plans to construct a 93 unit apartment complex on property known as 3495 South Bascom Avenue in an R-3-S (High Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee discussed the application with Mr. Garrison and would recommend a continuance for thirty days, to the second meeting in June. The applicant is in agreement with the continuance. Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-B be continued to June 17, 1976, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. "S" 76-11 Continued application of Oliver H. Nelson, Oliver Nelson for approval of plans to construct a second industrial building on property known as 520 McGlincey Lane in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Pack reported that the staff recommends denial with- out prejudice and the Architectural Review Committee concurs. Mr. Nelson was not present at the meeting and the denial without prej- udice would remove the item from the agenda. Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-11 be denied without prej- udice, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.. "S" 76-13 Application of Martin Ralstin for approval Ralstin, Martin of plans to construct an office building on property known as 1566 LaPradera Drive in a P-0 (Professional Office) Zoning District. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee would recommend approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The committee discussed the application with the appli- cant!s_representative and he is in agreement with the conditions. The building must be relocated in order to get the minimum 9 foot setback from the property line and the committee also recommends the addition of condition #7 to read: 7. A change in the roof materials to be approved by the Planning Director. Commissioner Hebard asked about parking spaces No. 27 and 28 and Commissioner Pack advised that they will be removed. Mr. Kee advised that the resultant parking ratio will be 1:200 square feet of gross floor area~,.which for office development would be well within the staff recommendation. Commissioner Hebard asked if the applicant is going to take advantage of the new ordinance which will become effective very shortly and will provide for compact car spaces. Mr. Kee advised that the parking layout is for full-size cars. When the ordinance becomes final, the applicant could revise the parking layout to comply with the ordinance. This would be a minor modification to the plans and the staff could approve the parking. However, until the ordinance is final, the appli- cant must comply with the ordinance which is now in effect. Commissioner Hebard requested that the applicant be advised that the new ordinance will become effective very shortly and would be available to him if he wished to revise the parking layout to meet the new ordinance requirements. Mr. Scott Gould, representing the applicant, stated there is no problem with the parking requirements and he would check with Mr. Kee regarding the new ordinance. .. 2 - Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-13 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by staff and with the addition of Condition No. 7, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. 1. Building to be relocated 4'-0" to the west. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red" on plans. 3. Landscape plan indicating type of plant material, location of hose bibs or sprinkler system and type of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director at time of application for building permit. 4. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 5. Faithful performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to be posted to insure landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area within three (3) months of completion of construction, or applicant may file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area prior to final building department clearance. 6. -All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. A change in the roof materials to be approved by the Planning Director. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell. A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All park- ing spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. $. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C. Plans submitted to the building department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provi- sions of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the building department. E. Ordinance No.782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, ~ garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits - 3 - of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all com- mercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establishments. F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity the development shall be located in areas fire department. Unless otherwise noted, consist of a concrete floor surrounded by fence and have self-closing doors of a si the fire department. necessary to serve approved by the enclosures shall a solid wall or ze specified by All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. G. Applicant shall meet all state requirements for the handicapped. ' $UILDING DEPARTMENT H. West exterior wall and mansard wall shall be minimum one hour. Table 5-A I. Windows shall be of wire glass. J. Roof covering shall have a "fire retardant" classification. Section 1603-3203 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -• K. Storm drainage area fee at $765 per acre. L. Obtain excavation permit for driveway and street trees. The applicant is notified that he shall comply with all applicable Codes~or Ordinances of the City~'of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. "S" 76-15 Application of Fred N. Sahadi, dba the Sahadi, Fred Prune Yard, for approval of plans to The Prune Yard construct a restaurant on property known as 1875 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee recommends approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. It is to be a "walk-up" or "snack bar" type restaurant. Mr. Kee advised that there is an existing flower kiosk on the site and this would be removed and a new structure constructed. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding development. The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the design of the proposed structure is in keeping with the character of the Prune Yard. ,. 4 - i- ..:~ Commissioner Dickson moved that "S" 76-15 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. 1. Provide a 2" water service to restaurant and install ten fire sprinklers for fire protection. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell. A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All park- ing spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C. Plans submitted to the building department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provi- sions of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the building department. E. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage, and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with the Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction estab- lishments. F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosures shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the fire department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. G. Applicant shall meet all state requirements for the handicapped. FIRE DEPARTMENT H. Provide one 10 lb. dry powder fire extinguisher for kitchen. - 5 - The applicant is notified that he shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PUBLIC HEARINGS E.I.R. 76-1 This is the time and place for continued Garrison, Elmer public hearing to consider the Environ- ' mental Impact Report for "S" 76-8, a proposed apartment complex to be located at 3495 South Bascom Avenue. Chairman Lubeckis asked for Mr. Kee's comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff would recommend a continuance to the second meeting in June. This item relates to Item No. 1 on the agenda and should be considered along with the site and architectural application. Commissioner Hebard moved that E.I.R. 76-1 be continued to the June 17, 1976 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. PD 76-3 This is the time and place for continued _ Sims, Alan public hearing to consider the applica- tion of Alan Sims to convert a residen- tial building into:a restaurant and to expand the existing building which is located on property known as 866 East Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Mr. Kee advised that the staff has received a communication from the applicant addressed to the Planning Commission requesting a continuance to the June 3 meeting. The continuance was not discussed at the committee meeting and came after the meeting. After discussion, the Architectural Review Committee decided to recommend denial of the application. The applicant has been operating the restaurant the past five years and has been re- viewed by the Commission during that time and extensions have been granted to conduct the business in the residential building. However, it does not conform to the zoning code. The staff cannot justify an approval recommendation for the conversion based on the fact that conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses are not permitted in any other zoning district, and the Planned Development section of the ordinace specifically states that plans must clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. In the staff's opinion, this has not been demonstrated. In addition, conversions to commercial uses of residential buildings are specifically prohibited in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning districts. Commissioner Campos asked if the applicant indicated that he was going to conform to the conditions of the code. - 6 - Commissioner Pack advised that the code does not allow for con- version of residential buildings into commercial establishments, and that is what the applicant has. Mr. Kee advised that the Planned Development zoning which is now on the property states that the plans must clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. Another zoning classification would include the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. There is a specific section in each one of those zoning districts which would prohibit the conversion of a residential building into a restaurant. That is the basis of the staff's recommendation for denial. tor. Sims has .had a temporary use for five years and at the time of the last extension it was indicated to the Commission that the applicant needed the additional time in which to develop plans for a commercial land use and, in his opinion, the applicant is requesting a permanent approval of what he now has with very little change in the building. Commissioner Hebard stated that all commercial zones prohibit the conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses. <r. The commercial and professional office zoning districts allows the conversion of residential buildings to professional office type uses. He was of the opinion that the Commission might have a difficult time denying an application on that basis alone particularly in a PD Zone if the applicant brought in plans that brought the building up to meet ..all the codes for a commercial building. If that is what the applicant is proposing to do, he thought the Commission should look at the plans. Mr. Kee advised that the Commission would need to make a finding that -the plans clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable-physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. If the Commission should make that finding, then there would be no problem with the use. In the staff's opinion, what has been presented is not the case. In any other zoning district the code states that this would not be permitted. If it is to be considered for approval, the staff would recommend that the ordinance be set for public hearing to change the commercial zones. The staff has been approached by other property owners with similar requests and when it is determined that they are in commercial zoning districts, staff tells them it is not possible to convert a residential building into a commercial use and of course their question is, "How did it take place on East Campbell Avenue?" The use at 866 East Campbell Avenue is a temporary use in a PD zoning idstrict. If the use is to be permitted in the PD zone, then, in his opinion, it should be considered for the other zones as well. Approximately five years ago the staff did recommend approval of conversions of residential buildings and the Planning Commission supported that proposal. H-owever, the City Council did not. 7 Mr. Dempster advised that the City Council has made a policy that there is no provision for conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses. Until the Council changes the policy, the Commission would be recommending exceptions to the policy if they should make the findings to approve the application. Mr. Kee advised that the plans before the Architectural Review Committee and the Commission are essentially the same plans that were approved for the temporary use and represents pretty much the building that exists today. City Attorney Dempster advised. that in his opinion the Commission would be on firm ground if they should find that the application does not meet the code standards. After considerable discussion, City Attorney Dempster recommended that the Commission send the applicant a letter advising him that they were honoring his request for a continuance and that the matter will be heard on June 3. Chairman Lubeckis asked if condition ~3 of the September 1975 approval has been met by the applicant. Mr. Kee advised that the applicant is aware that the use expires on December 27, 1976. Commissioner Dickson moved that PD 76-3 be continued to the June 3, 1976 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. . Commissioner Pack stated that in her opinion, this is a matter that should be the subject of a study. After the loop streets are constructed and the downtown. redevelopment takes place there is going to be an entirely different look in the area. Things change and after five years possibly this code section should be studied for possible change.' Mr. Kee suggested that the matter be referred to the Commercial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. Five years ago they recommended against the conversion of residential buildings to commercial uses. The Planning Commission, City Council, Civic Improvement Commission and other interested persons should be involved in the study. Commissioner Pack was in agreement with this approach. Commissioner Hebard stated that he would not like to see this under the pressure of this application. Mr. Kee advised that the temporary use expires in December 1976 and that would give the staff time to have the study before action is taken on the application. Chairman Lubeckis directed staff to conduct such a study of the ordinance. - 8 - Chairman Lubeckis declared a recess at 8;20 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. UP 76-6 This is the time and place for public Der Wienerschnitzel hearing to consider the application of Hopkins, Chris Chris Hopkins on behalf of Der Wienerschnitzel, Inc. for approval of an application for a use permit to allow one outdoor business (service station) to be replaced by another outdoor business (drive-in restaurant) and approval of plans to construct a restaurant on property known as 1380 West Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that Section 21.36.010 of the Campbell t4unicipal Code provides that any outdoor business activity legally exist- ing at the time of the enactment of the Outdoor Business District Section of the Zoning Code shall be considered a permitted use and_may be replaced with the same or any other outdoor business activity if a use permit is first obtained. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,760 square foot drive-in/sit-down restaurant on a 21,700 square foot lot. Building materials are indicated as stucco and cedar siding and a concrete file roof. The applicant is providing 29 parking spaces which, in the staff's opinion, should be adequate for this use. The Architectural Advisor and staff are of the opinion that the design of the proposed building is much more pleasant and interesting than the older buildings of the type-that is located on Bascom Avenue. The staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in-the report. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant and recommends approval subject to all the conditions recommended by staff. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mr. Chris Hopkins, representing Der Wienerschnitzel, Inc. stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission or others might have. The staff presented photos of the proposed building for review by the Commission. Chairman Lubeckis asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There being no one present wishing to speak further, Commissioner Dickson moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. 9 - Commissioner Hebard stated that it was his understanding that this type of use would not be permitted at this location if a -- similar type use had not been established there. Several years ago the City adopted an ordinance to restrict outdoor type businesses unless they are located at the intersection of two major streets or in a shopping center having a minimum of not less than five acres. This is not at the intersection of two major streets, Commissioner Hebard stated that, in his opinion, he did not think the Commission was obliged to grant the use permit. If the area were vacant it would not be permitted and he did not think that the Commission was obligated to allow a replace- ment of the Arco Service Station that was there. Mr. Kee advised that the code does provide for replacement of outdoor businesses that were in effect at the time the ordinance was adopted. The code reads: "Any outdoor business activity legally existing at the time of enactment of this section shall be considered as a permitted use, but it may not be extended, expanded, en- larged, remodeled or replaced with. the same or any other outdoor business activity unless and until a permit is first obtained as provided in Sections 21.64.010 through 21.64.060 and the Planning Commission finds that the use will not impede the proper develop- ment of the area." City Attorney Dempster stated that any outdoor business legally - existing at the time of the enactment of the Outdoor Business District shall be considered as a permitted use and the section of the code provides for the replacement of the use with a use permit. Commissioner Hebard stated that~he could not see where this would be a compatible use in the area, particularly due to the fact that it is facing on one side to a major street and the other side to a minor street. Mr. Dempster advised the section of the outdoor business district pertaining to location of outdoor businesses pertains to vacant land and that section of the code cannot be applied to replace- ment of a legal use. Mr. Kee advised that the Architectural Advisor and staff are of the opinion that the architecture of the proposed building would be compatible with the surrounding area. RESOLUTION N0. 1512 Commissioner Samuelson moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1512 approving UP 76-6 and the plans for a drive-in/sit-down restaurant on property located at 1380 West Campbell Avenue subject to .. the conditions recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted by the following roll call vote: - 10 - AYES: Commissioners; Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES.: Commissioners: Hebard ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart ZC 76-2 This is the time and place for public Day, James W. hearing on the application of Mr. James W. Day for a change of zoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) . to P-D (Planned Development), and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of a 14 unit housing complex on property known as 1401 Pollard Road. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the applicant is proposing a 14 unit town- house development--not apartments--which would be under individual ownership. The staff has recommended a continuance in order that revised ~,,/ plans can be submitted. The plans indicate slightly more than. ~~' Y 6 units per gross acre, which is more than the General Plan ~~, would allow. The General Plan would allo~a•6 or less units per' ~1 -~ gross acre. The staff is recommending a continuance so the 4p/ developer can submit revised plans indicating the acceptable number of units. Mr. Kee advised that a petition had been submitted from the people in the surrounding area objecting to the development. (Petition on file in the Planning Department office). The configuration of the lot is very unusual and one that would be difficult to develop. Commissioner Hebard stated that he was disappointed that plans have not been presented indicating single family home, rather than a townhouse development. He stated the neighbors object to the townhouse development and he said he would like to see the applicant work out plans for a planned development on a single family residence basis. He stated that during the General Plan hearings they left this area as R-1, but did recognize that the parcel would be almost impossible to develop as R-l, but that it could be developed as a single family development on a P-D basis. Chairman Lubeckis asked if it would be possible to develop townhouses in an R-1 zone. - Mr. Kee advised that through-the P-D townhouses could be developed with a restriction on the density. It would have to develop with a density of 6 units or less per gross acre, which is indicated on the General Plan. The General Plan - 11 - calls for low density development in this area and the only way that could be accomplished would be through a P-D. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission must make certain findings to approve the planned development zoning, He asked that the plans be presented. Mr. Kee advised that the plans are not the ones that the ~ staff is recommending. The staff is recommending that re- vised plans come back to the Architectural Review Committee and the Commission which indicate 6 units or less per gross acre. Commissioner Hebard moved that ZC 76-2 be continued to the June 3 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Pack. 3 ~. u~'Y/ L~,~° ~~~ ~-'" Chairman Lubeckis stated that inasmuch as a number of persons were in the audience and had waited for the item to come up on the agenda, that they should be given the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Dempster advised the Commission that the zoning and-plans can be considered at the same time. The Commission should consider the zoning first and then the plans. Commissioner Hebard withdrew the motion for continuance. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposal. Mr. Anthony J. Mendivil, 1393 Estrellita, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that the people in the area appeared before the Commission about a year ago when a change in zoning from R-1 to R-~M.was proposed. The application was denied. He stated the people in the surrounding area are opposed to multiple units. Most of the lots in the area are one- quarter or half acres and a townhouse development would destroy their view of the mountains. He also cited parking problems as a reason for objecting to the proposal. He asked about the type of buildings that were being proposed. Mr. Kee stated that the plans on file are not the ones to be reviewed as they do not meet the code requirements. Commissioner Hebard stated that the plans cannot be considered because the number of units exceeds that allowed in a low density area. The only kind of a plan they can approve without changing the P-D, would be one that is less than six units per gross acre. Mr. Mendivil was of the opinion that there would be more people in the two story structures. Mr. Kee stated that all that would be allowed on the property would be 13 living units with one kitchen per unit. The height limit in the R-l zone is 2 1/2 stories. - 12 .. Mr, Mendivil stated that two-story build~,ngs would not be . compatible i,n their. area, (, . ~~~~~; Mr. Kee advised that the General Plan indicates this area CJ~~y for low density residential. R-1 would comply and also P-D y ~'" would comply. Six or less units are the maximum that can be~P/''~ approved. The General Plan would control the number of units allowed, Mr. Mendivil asked if there is no difference in R-1 and the P-D, why does he want P~D? Mr. Dempster advised he doesn't want R-l, he wants the P-D which would allow him to cluster the buildings, but at the same low density as the R-1. Mr. Kee advised that the R-1 calls for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. This is a very difficult piece of property to develop and that is one of the reasons the applicant is applying for the P-D which gives the flexibility in develop- ing in accord with the General Plan which calls for low density on the property. Mr. William Evans, 1431 Juanita Avenue, stated that approximately -~ 8 or_ ,9 ,months ago Mayor Hammer and Councilman Podgorsek met with the people of the area to discuss annexation. At that time we were told the area was R-1 and it would remain R-1. He stated that there is an application for annexation of two parcels of property on the basis of the promise by the City that the area would remain R-1. Mr. Kee stated that any application for annexation would come before the Planning Department and there is no record of one in process. "' W Mr. Evans stated that the application has not been turned in yet. After considerable discussion as to the R-1 and P-D zoning and the General Plan densities, Commissioner Hebard moved that ZC 76-2 be continued to the June 3 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. MISCELLANEOUS ,~ T.S. 76-2 Tentative Subdivision Map--Lands of Valley Forge #2 Stanley E. Tanner, et ux, for approval of a 28-unit condominium development on property located on Valley Forge Way west of Millich Drive in a R-2-S Zoning District. __~ Mr. Kee advised that an identical subdivision map was approved 13 - by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1974. The applicant failed to file a final, map and, therefore, the tentative map is before the Commission again. The staff recommends approval. Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve T.S. 76-2 subject to the recommended conditions, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. Housing Needs Mr. Kee advised that this item was Assessment Study continued from the last meeting of the Planning Commission in order that the Commission could have more time for review of the study and comment to the Commission. Mr. Kee stated that the staff is moving along with the draft of the Housing Element, which will be before the Commission in the next few weeks. This assessment study has been used as a source of information for that element. He advised that two members of the consulting firm who prepared the study were in the audience. Commissioner Dickson stated that the report indicates that the City of Campbell is going to have to in the future utilize land to the maximum to take care of the population growth that is expected. He did not think that Campbell should set up policies that everything is going to be multiple housing. He did not feel that it is up to Campbell to take care of all the projected growth and 'that is one thing in~:the report that he did not concur with. rir. Kee stated that he did not think that was a recommendation. The policies of the City will come out of the Housing Element. This section of the report is calling attention to the £act that the natural increase in population over the next 10 years could not live within the City of Campbell. The Housing Element and the General Plan will define the densities. Commissioner Dickson stated that, in his opinion, it is an excellent study. Commissioner Pack moved that the Housing Needs Assessment Study be accepted, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. Census Report Staff report on Census '75. Mr. Kee advised that the City Council reviewed the memorandum from the Building Official pertaining to the 1975 Special Census which was conducted by the County. The results of this census indicate that Campbell's population increased by only 380 - 14 persons in the period 1970-1975 The Council decided to accept the January 1, 1975 State certified population estimate of 29,550. In 1980 another Federal Census will be taken. The figures that came out of the special census do reflect that school sites are being closed and that family sizes are going down. Mr. Kee advised that the information can be used in the housing study and that the information was presented in order to keep the Commission informed as to the status of the County Census. Study Session Commissioner Hebard stated that County Housing Authority since the Senior Citizen development on Bascom Avenue is not materializing, and with the passage of measures for public housing, he was of the opinion that there should be a study session with the County Housing Authority to set up some guidelines of what the City can expect from them and what they can expect from the City. Mr. Kee advised that he had tried to contact Mr. Burns, Director of the Housing Authority, but that he is out of town until the. first part of June. The County Housing Authority is the Housing Authority of Campbell and Mr. Burns has stated before the Council that it would require Council approval of anythin g _' that would come into Campbell. Mr. Kee advised that he would report back to the Commission at the next meeting regarding his discussion with Pir. Burns. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Campos moved that the • ~ mee-ting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. APPROVED: Oleg L ec is, Chairm ~ ~ i f ATTEST : r G' ;;~, ~.. Arthur A. Kee, Secretary ,'1 -, RECORDED` ~ t%,~tC~c..~C t=-'~~::y~'' .~ Phyllis Acker, Recorder - 15